Learning from 360-degree videos on a VR headset compared to 2D videos on a monitor

Abstract

Online teaching has drastically increased over recent years. Although presentation of teaching videos in 360-degree on Virtual Reality headsets was shown to be more immersive than 2D videos, it is under debate whether people learn better from immersive 360-degree videos or 2D videos. The current preregistered study aimed to compare students’ learning success about a practical laboratory training in Electroencephalography from 360-degree videos shown on a VR headset compared to 2D videos. Forty-six participants responded to questions about Electroencephalography before and after watching a training video in 2D on a screen or in 360-degree on a VR headset. Their test score significantly improved and immediate learning performance was comparable in both conditions. However, participants preferred watching the 360-degree immersive videos on a VR headset and found them more practical. This suggests that both video formats can successfully be used in teaching contexts, though motivation to watch the video may be higher for 360-degree videos.

Keywords:

• 360-degree videos
• 2D videos
• immersive learning environment
• learning
• digital learning

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Stephen Darwin, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

SUBJECTS:

• Technology
• Educational Psychology
• Psychological Science

Introduction

Teaching has expanded to the online world, with the use of video-based teaching methods drastically increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though contact restrictions and lockdowns subsided, online teaching is still used in school and university contexts. There are some teaching formats however, for which video-based teaching is challenging, such as laboratory-based practical training. Therefore, a growing number of virtual learning environments have been created worldwide to help students learning from chemistry to engineering subjects (Georgiou et al., 2007; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019; Kiourt et al., 2020; Paxinou et al., 2018; Rahman et al., 2022). Adding to this effort of supporting students virtually by training them in Electroencephalography (EEG) and eye-tracking content, we developed 360-degree videos as training materials that allow students to visit the laboratory in an immersive virtual environment (Open Access Materials Link). Previous research suggests that watching 360-degree videos allows people to engage in the virtual world, as real-life events and immersive virtual experiences are difficult to distinguish (Rubo & Gamer, 2021).

Recent studies comparing the memory performance when viewing virtual environments via 360-degree videos and 2D videos demonstrated that long-term memory and learning was better when viewing 360-degree videos (Hwang et al., 2023; Ventura et al., 2019). However, other studies showed no difference in knowledge acquisition between the two methods, although students that watched the 360-degree using virtual reality (VR) headset reported more motivation to learn (Christopoulos et al., 2023). Therefore, even though the debate on whether participants learn better from 360-degree videos or virtual reality is than from 2D videos is still ongoing, studies have shown that motivation, engagement and multi-perspective reflection increase when learning new content from 360-degree videos or virtual reality environments (Rosendahl & Wagner, 2024; Schroeder et al., 2023). VR can be beneficial, as students preparing for a wet laboratory test using both textbooks and VR performed overall better than their counterparts that learned the content only from a textbook (Paxinou et al., 2018). They also had better knowledge of the content and were more confident about their possessed knowledge (Paxinou et al., 2018). Other studies also showed improved learning from real-life and VR experiences compared to 2D screen experiences, leading to the formation of more elaborate memory traces (Cabeza et al., 2004; Kisker et al., 2021). Superior learning from VR compared to 2D was demonstrated for memorization of routes (Kim et al., 2018), objects (Mania et al., 2003), and faces (Krokos et al., 2019). However, some factors should be noted: A recent study by Wessels, Valuch, Schacht & Kulke (under review) shows that the context may play a significant role for memory retrieval performance, as participants who learned in VR could retrieve their memory better in VR and those who learned in 2D retrieved better in 2D (Wessels et al., 2019). However, information encoded in VR can more easily be transferred to another context than information encoded in 2D (Wessels et al., 2019). Even though virtual reality environments can be more interactive, immersive environment through 360-degree videos are considered more low-cost and demand less technical expertise to produce compared to building virtual environments to be engaged via VR. Consequently, they are easier to implement especially in certain developing communities but seem to offer advantages compared to 2D videos (Rosendahl & Wagner, 2024; Schroeder et al., 2023). The current study complements the literature with a new comparison of students’ learning success between watching a practical laboratory training session as immersive 360-videos using VR headsets and watching 2D video on a screen. The previous literature suggests improved knowledge acquisition when learning from virtual environments (Hwang et al., 2023; Paxinou et al., 2018; Ventura et al., 2019), as suggested by several theories (Marougkas et al., 2023). The theory of constructivism suggests that learners learn by actively engaging with a topic rather than passively consuming content (Piaget, 1929). Practical laboratory training usually involves active learning which can be beneficial for the learning experience, but was significantly reduced during contact restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bundesregierung, 2022). As 360-degree VR videos may lead to more active content consumption than 2D videos, they may be learned better. Similarly, the Experiential learning theory suggests that people learn best from concrete hands-on active experiences (Kolb, 1984). Immersive 360-degree videos may be perceived more similar to a concrete experience than 2D videos and therefore improve learning. Specifically in the research-based learning context, the Scientific Discovery Learning theory explains learning success: it stresses the importance of active hands-on experience for learning scientific concepts (Bruner, 1961). Again, the students’ activity may be higher for immersive 360-degree videos than for 2D videos. Furthermore, gamification has played an increasing role in learning: if people consider learning as a joyful experience they may be more successful at learning (Akman & Çakır, 2019). Students may consider VR videos more joyful than 2D videos.

We therefore aimed to investigate whether students learn research skill in EEG and eye-tracking more successfully via 360-degree videos than from 2D videos. Before and after watching the video via either the 360-degree or a 2D format, participants completed a knowledge questionnaire on EEG and eye-tracking that asked for information presented in the video. As studies in immersive learning highlight its capability to activate episodic memory and facilitate engaging learning experiences through roleplaying, simulations, games, storytelling, and other interactive tools (Barretta et al., 2023; Pellas et al., 2021), we expected participants to answer more questionnaire items correctly after than before watching the video. Furthermore, we expected this improvement to be larger in the 360-degree video presentation than in the 2D video presentation.

Additionally, in line with the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, the learning experience in the current study stimulates focus and enjoyment (Akman & Çakır, 2019), since the video content focused on a specific skill that can be learned in an enjoyable manner (Wells et al., 2021). Therefore, regarding the enjoyment, we expected participants to prefer watching 360-degree VR videos to 2D videos. However, we expected them to find 2D videos more practical.

Methods

Participants

The study was preregistered with the OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JGRUP). Forty-eight healthy adults between 18 and 30 years of age were recruited via advertisements, university classes, online forms and databases to reach the preregistered sample of 46 participants (23 per condition; 43 female, mean age = 21.10 ± 2.86 years). Two participants were excluded, because we had already reached the number required after their testing appointments were scheduled. This sample size is based on effects of a previous similar study (Schöne et al., 2019). An a priori power analysis was conducted and suggested a required sample size of n = 23 per condition (see preregistration). The study was conducted in line with the declaration of Helsinki and in line with local standards, and an ethical evaluation was not required. Participants signed a written informed consent before participating in the study, and they received course credit as a reward.

Procedure

Participants arrived at the lab and completed a knowledge questionnaire about EEG and eye-tracking. In a pre-post design, learning success was compared between participants learning from 2D videos and from 360 degree videos. This design is similar to previous research (e.g. Hwang et al., 2023, Rosendahl & Wagner, 2024, Christopoulos et al., 2023, for a review, see Schroeder et al., 2023). Participants answered the question of whether they would prefer to watch a video in 2D or in 360 degrees; however, their assignment to conditions was independent of the answer. They subsequently watched a 19:48 min long video on EEG and eye-tracking which was either presented on a computer monitor (24″ Acer B246HL LCD-Monitor) as a 2D video or on a Virtual Reality Headset (HP Reverb G2) as a 360-degree video. Identical video materials were used with the only difference being that in the VR condition participants saw the video as a 360-degree presentation on a VR headset (shown to be more immersive and leading to better memory performance in previous research (Ventura et al., 2019; Hwang et al., 2023)) and in the 2D condition in 2D on a screen. By using identical materials in different presentation modes, we ensured that we could specifically manipulate the presentation mode condition while controlling other factors. While direct comparisons of media during learning have been criticised as simplified (Glaser & Moore, 2023), we believe that our study can provide useful insights for practical media use in teaching situations. All video materials are openly shared on Youtube as playlists (Open Access Video Materials in English language, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA2zlTBFuWc and German language, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cygQOodvpw). After watching the video, participants filled in the knowledge questionnaire a second time. They additionally completed a questionnaire about their impression of practicability and enjoyability of the method (see Supplement Material A). All questionnaires were filled in on a computer using PsychoPy Builder software (v. 2022.2.1; See Supplementary Material A for the questionnaires and accepted answers in German). The test scores on the knowledge questionnaire were computed by summing up the correct responses.

Design

In a mixed design, correct answers to questions about the video were collected before and after watching the video for each participant (within participants). The presentation mode of the video (360-degree video on VR headset or 2D video on screen) was manipulated and counterbalanced between participants. After completion of the final questionnaire, participants were asked additional questions regarding the practicality of using VR headsets for learning and their interest in it.

Statistical analyses

Analyses were completed in R Studio (v. 2022.12.0). To compute the independent t-test, we used the function t.test (package ‘stats’) and the function anova_test (package ‘rstatix’) to perform the mixed ANOVA (Kassambara, 2020; R Core Team, 2021). Follow-up t-tests were conducted using the pairwise_t_test function (package ‘rstatix’) (Kassambara, 2020). To calculate Cohen’s D, we chose the cohensD function (package ‘lsr’) and Bayes factor for t-tests and anova were computed using the ttestBF and anovaBF (package ‘BayesFactor’), respectively (Morey, 2022; Navarro, 2015). Finally, chi-square test was performed using the chisq.test function (package ‘stats’) (R Core Team, 2021).

Results

A t-test showed that participants answered more questions correctly after (M = 22.750, 95% CI = 1.611) watching the video than before (M = 5.456, 95% CI = 0.935), t(45) = −23.153, p < .001, BF = 2.510 × 10²³, d = 3.413.

A mixed ANOVA investigated effects of presentation mode (360-degree or 2D) and testing time (before or after the video) on questionnaire scores (see Figure 1). We confirmed the effect of testing time, F(1,44) = 536.909, p < .001, BF = 1.431 × 10³³, η² = .804, with participants improving their scores after watching the video. However, there was no significant difference when comparing the effect of presentation mode, F(1,44) = 3.137, p = .083, BF = .318, η² = .045 and no interaction between testing time and presentation mode, F(1,44) = 1.069, p = .307, BF = 0.4537, η² = .008. Follow up pairwise t-test confirmed there was no effect of presentation mode.

Figure 1. Participants’ scores and evaluation of video format. On the left panel, scores were computed based on the correct answers to the questions about EEG and eye-tracking. Participants improved their scores in both conditions: after watching the 2D video on the PC monitor, and after watching it as a 360-degree video on the VR headset. The middle panel shows that participants found the 360-degree format more enjoyable than the 2D format. The right panel shows that participants found 360-degree format more practical than the 2D format.

A chi-square-test compared the number of participants who said in the beginning that they would rather watch the 360-degree video in a VR headset to chance (0.5). Participants significantly preferred to watch the video using the VR headset, χ²(1) = 6.422, p = .011, [14 preferred the 2D video, 31 the VR headset].

Questions regarding practicability and enjoyment of both formats were compared, and participants thought that watching the content as a 360-degree video was more practical (M = 2.173, 95% CI = .360) than watching is as a 2D video, (M = 3.086, 95% CI = .610), t(35.695) = 2.670, p = .011, BF = 4.684, d = .787. They also found that watching the video through the VR headset (M = 1.782, 95% CI = .259) was more enjoyable than on the PC monitor (M = 3.260, 95% CI = .373), t(39.198) = 6.739, p < .001, BF = 340360.2, d = 1.987.

Exploratory analysis

We collected further data about the participants’ opinions about the content learned and the format, besides practicality and enjoyability.

Participants enjoyed watching the video content similarly in both 2D video (M = 2.304, 95% CI = .330) and 360-degree video (M = 1.913, 95% CI = .317), t(43.922) = 1.771, p = .083, BF = 1.022, d = .522.

Furthermore, when splitting participants according to the video format they were assigned, we found that both groups similarly reported they would likely watch a learning video in 2D at home, t(42.906) = −0.689, p = .083, BF = 0.354, d = .203 (2D M = 2.0, 95% CI = .597; 360-degree M = 2.260, 95% CI = .508). The same was reported when questioned if they would watch the learning content as a 360-degree video at home, t(43.501) = −0.097, p = .922, BF = 0.293, d = .028 (2D M = 3.310, 95% CI = .615; 360-degree M = 3.173, 95% CI = .685). In contrast, regardless of the condition they were assigned, participants reported they would be more likely to watch the video as 2D format (M = 2.130, 95% CI = .378) at home than as a 360-degree video (M = 3.152, 95% CI = .442), t(45) = −3.231, p = .002, BF = 13.911, d = .476.

Finally, we collected qualitative information including the answers to how much technical experience the participant had with 360-degree videos, pros and cons to 360-degree videos and which preparation or help they would need to watch 360-degree videos using a VR headset. A qualitative overview suggests that participants consider advantages of VR immersive environments to be that there is less distraction and more attention and it is more realistic and more fun. They think that disadvantages of watching a video using a VR headset are the costs and effort, the inability to take notes and it being less familiar and more difficult to watch and that it can lead to physical and psychological discomfort. Most participants considered themselves unable to use VR at home unless they acquired a VR headset and technological background knowledge on how to connect it with the computer and some also mentioned that they would require more space to move freely at home. The full list of original (German) answers can be found in Supplement B.

Discussion

The current study aimed to compare learning from 2D videos compared to 360-degree videos. Participants successfully improved their knowledge about EEG and eye-tracking independent of the video format they watched. However, if given a chance, most participants would choose to watch the content using the VR headset. They furthermore found this format more enjoyable and, surprisingly, also more practical than just watching it on the PC monitor as a 2D video. Finally, participants equally enjoyed the content of the video they watched independent of the presentation format and they reported that they would more likely watch 2D videos at home than the 360-degree videos.

The study firstly shows that both 2D and 360-degree videos can successfully be used for teaching of laboratory knowledge about EEG and eye-tracking to university students. The videos are openly available allowing interested students and public to further their knowledge. The presentation medium seems to play a negligible role for learning success (see e.g. suggestion by Glaser & Moore, 2023). This finding corroborates that virtual teaching is successful and can complement live teaching. This is particularly useful if live teaching is not possible, which was the case during COVID-19 lockdowns. Additionally, it is also useful in situations where local teaching is not possible – for example, the videos can be made available to people around the world, while only a local population is able to visit the laboratory in person. It furthermore allows for practical demonstration with rare and difficult to recruit populations, for example, research on infants (click here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA2zlTBFuWc for Open Access Materials). In fact, some studies have provided evidence that the use of immersive VR in higher education and primary/secondary schools is a viable option to complement traditional learning (Pellas et al., 2021). It should be noted that the presentation of VR videos used in the current study does not train practical laboratory skills, but it provides a useful knowledge basis required to successfully perform in such practical situations. Even though students might benefit of different approaches when using immersive learning (e.g. project-based learning, problem-based learning, game-based learning, observation of 360-degree videos and visual field trips), costs, technical requirements, and training of professionals and students might hinder the experience (Marks & Thomas, 2022; Pellas et al., 2021). Furthermore, problems with motion sickness and blurry vision, for example, after wearing VR headsets are technological limitations that might influence the inclusiveness of the method (Marks & Thomas, 2022; Pellas et al., 2021). In the current study, we focused our investigation on the passive observation of 360-degree videos using VR headset as a learning tool, and we believe that it can be useful as an optional method for students that would be interested in it as an addition to a more traditional methods like live teaching and textbooks. However, the technology has to evolve to be more accessible and inclusive, such as computers and smartphones did overtime, to be fully included as part of the curriculum.

The comparable learning success from 2D and 360-degree videos is in line with previous research on object recognition (Christopoulos et al., 2023; Kisker et al., 2021) while contradicting other studies (Hwang et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2018; Krokos et al., 2019; Mania et al., 2003; Schöne et al., 2019; Ventura et al., 2019). It contributes to the discussion on whether 360-degree videos are superior for learning, by showing that this is not the case for learning a laboratory knowledge and immediately retrieving knowledge in a questionnaire. It should be noted that practical knowledge could not be tested in the current study. It is possible that the knowledge could be transferred to the real world more easily when learned from 360-degree videos than from 2D videos, as it’s been demonstrated in other studies (Barretta et al., 2023; Pellas et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2021). It is also possible that retention about the information might be better using the 360-degree video, as suggested by previous studies (Hwang et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2018; Krokos et al., 2019; Mania et al., 2003; Ventura et al., 2019).

Participants preferred watching the video in 360-degree to the 2D video. The preference may affect learning motivation and therefore may be beneficial for initiating learning. This is in line with previous research showing that motivation, engagement and perceived enjoyment were increased during immersive virtual reality learning (Christopoulos et al., 2023; Pellas et al., 2021). It also aligns with Gamification theories suggesting that learning may benefit from joyful experiences (Akman & Çakır, 2019). However, the current study shows that the increased preference did not affect learning success and that participants equally enjoyed the content of the video in both formats. Although we expected participants to find 2D videos more practical than VR videos, this was not the case. We believe this may be due to the wording, because “practical” can mean easy to use or real world related. It was clear after observing participants’ ratings and their answers to the open questions, that they mostly believe we asked about the latter meaning and found VR videos to be more related to the real world. In line with theories of Constructivism (Piaget, 1929), the Experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and Scientific Discovery Learning (Bruner, 1961), the increased practicality would be expected to lead to greater learning success for 360-degree videos, which was not the case in the current study. It should be noted that participants did report that they would prefer to watch the 2D video at home, rather than the 360-degree video, because of technical requirements, equipment expenses and necessary technical knowledge (see supplementary material B for complete responses). Therefore, in the current times, students might enjoy the format and think 360-degree videos are more immersive to learn content from, but only believe this is possible with a required support environment in which they can get all the technical support (e.g. in universities and schools). In fact, this a factor investigated in previous research, and it highlights some limitations with using immersive learning that must be overcome in order to have a broader appeal as a learning tool (Marks & Thomas, 2022; Pellas et al., 2021).

In summary, the current study shows that knowledge about EEG can be successfully learned from both 2D and 360-degree videos, with participants preferring 360-degree videos and finding them more practical and more enjoyable, however they would more likely watch 2D videos than 360-degree videos at home.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Innovationsfonds Lehre (2021/2022) from Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg for financial support. In addition, we would like to thank Niloufar Ramezanzadegan and Patricia Gmehling for their help in the preparation of the 360-degree videos. Finally, we would like thank Nadine Then and Veronika Skroban for their help with testing the participants and computing test scores.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

We would like to thank the Innovationsfonds Lehre (2021/2022) from Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg for financial support.

Notes on contributors

Louisa Kulke

Louisa Kulke is a professor for Developmental Psychology with Educational Psychology at the University of Bremen. Her research focuses on social, emotional and attentional development and learning. She has a long experience teaching classes in developmental and educational psychology.

Laura Pasqualette

Laura Pasqualette is a PhD candidate at the Department of Developmental Psychology with Educational Psychology at the University of Bremen. Her research focuses on differences between live and virtual interactions.